Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Ds Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance to allow 1.6‑acre frontage carve‑off for medical office
Summary
The Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals approved a development standards variance that lets developers carve off about 1.6 acres from an existing apartment parcel to build a medical office building for Goodman Campbell Brain & Spine; staff recommended approval and the vote was 4‑0.
The Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday approved a variance to allow a 1.63‑acre lot to be carved from an existing 12.53‑acre apartment parcel so a medical office user can build on the frontage.
The approval allows the existing apartment parcel to exceed the mixed‑use‑core density cap after the frontage parcel is carved off; the developer and staff said the carve‑off would not add apartment units but would reduce the acreage used to calculate units per acre. Brian Sheward, a civil engineer at Kimley‑Horn & Associates, said the petitioner has filed a concept plan and primary plat and expects to return to the plan commission next month for additional approvals.
Sheward said the proposed frontage lot is intended for Goodman Campbell Brain & Spine, a medical office user, and that the carve‑off would create a 1.63‑acre development lot along Perry Worth Road near the roundabout at Juniors Way. “The proposed 1.63 acre lot…has already been filed,” Sheward said. He presented arithmetic showing the apartment parcel currently had 188 units across roughly 12.53 acres (about 15.00 units per acre); if 1.62 acres were removed the remaining acreage would total about 10.92 acres, raising the density to roughly 17.22 units per acre and therefore requiring a variance from the mixed‑use‑core density limit.
Staff recommended approval. A planning staff member told the board the application met the criteria for a development standards variance and that staff did not find the proposal “injurious to the public,” noting the frontage lot would be suitable for a medical office use and that strict adherence to the ordinance could leave a valuable frontage parcel undeveloped.
Board members asked whether the carve‑off would increase the number of apartments or parking demand; the petitioner said it would not create additional apartment units and that the existing apartment project would remain as built. The board voted 4‑0 to approve the variance based on findings of fact and the staff recommendation.
The petitioner and project team said they plan to return to the plan commission for concept‑plan and primary‑plat review and then follow with development‑plan and secondary‑plat filings. The variance approval permits the development plan process to continue under the requested density calculation.
The board recorded the approval and closed the item; staff will track subsequent plan‑commission filings and the petitioner will return with the development plan and secondary plat as scheduled.
